不同稻秸添加比例对紫花苜蓿和麦麸混合青贮的影响

doi:10.11686/cyxb2018570

草业学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (5): 178-184.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2018570

不同稻秸添加比例对紫花苜蓿和麦麸混合青贮的影响

罗颖洁¹, 陈桂华¹, 穆麟¹, 胡龙兴¹, 张志飞^1,*, 高帅², 魏仲珊²

1.湖南农业大学农学院,湖南长沙 410128;
2.湖南德人牧业科技有限公司,湖南常德 415921

收稿日期:2018-08-31 修回日期:2019-01-29 出版日期:2019-05-20 发布日期:2019-05-20
通讯作者: E-mail: zhangzf@hunau.edu.cn
作者简介:罗颖洁(1994-),女,湖南岳阳人,在读硕士。E-mail: 328239710@qq.com
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划 “畜禽饲草型日粮配置与高效转化关键技术研究与示范”(2017YFD0502104)资助

Effects on silage quality of mixing different ratios of rice straw with alfalfa and wheat bran

LUO Ying-jie¹, CHEN Gui-hua¹, MU Lin¹, HU Long-xing¹, ZHANG Zhi-fei^1,*, GAO Shuai², WEI Zhong-shan²

1. Agricultural College of Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China;
2.Hunan Deren Husbandry Science and Technology Ltd., Changde 415921, China

Received:2018-08-31 Revised:2019-01-29 Online:2019-05-20 Published:2019-05-20
Contact: E-mail: zhangzf@hunau.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探讨不同稻秸添加比例对紫花苜蓿和麦麸混合青贮发酵品质的影响,以紫花苜蓿、麦麸及5个不同比例(0、5%、10%、15%和20%)的稻秸分别进行混合裹包青贮,30 d后测定混合青贮饲料的发酵品质、营养品质和有氧稳定性。结果表明:1)稻秸添加组与不添加的对照组pH、可溶性碳水化合物(WSC)、酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)和NH₃-N/TN有显著差异(P<0.05);随着稻秸添加量的增加,pH值、ADF、中性洗涤纤维(NDF)和有氧稳定性递增,粗蛋白(CP)、WSC、相对饲料值(RFV)和V-Score值降低。2)根据V-Score评分可知,0和5%的稻秸添加组发酵品质为优,10%和15%稻秸添加组的发酵品质为良,20%稻秸添加组发酵品质中等。3)青贮30 d开包后,0和5%的稻秸添加组的有氧稳定性分别为64和72 h,10%、15%和20%稻秸添加组的有氧稳定性均大于168 h;有氧暴露4 d后,0、5%、10%和20%稻秸添加组pH值迅速变化,15%稻秸添加组变化相对较小。综上所述,优质混合青贮的推荐稻秸添加比例应小于5%。

关键词: 混合青贮, 水稻秸秆, 发酵品质, 营养品质, 有氧稳定性

Abstract: To investigate the influence of different ratios of rice straw on the fermentation quality of alfalfa and wheat bran mixed silage, this study conducted a series of experiments in which different ratios of rice straw (0, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) were added to the mixed silage and its fermentation quality, nutritional quality, and aerobic stability were analyzed after 30 days. It was found that: 1) There were significant differences in pH, water soluble carbohydrates (WSC), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and NH₃-N/TN between the control group (0) and the other groups (P<0.05). When the ratio of rice straw is increased, the pH, ADF, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and aerobic stability of the mixed silage tended to increase while the values for crude protein (CP), WSC, relative feed value (RFV) and V-Score decreased. 2) As determined from the V-Score, silage quality for the 0 and 5% treatments was superior, quality of the 10% and 15% treatments was fairish and quality of the 20% treatment was considered to be inferior. 3) After 64 and 72 h aerobic exposure, the 0 and 5% treatments were 2 ℃ above ambient temperature, while the aerobic stability times for the 10%, 15% and 20% treatments were all above 168 h. Furthermore, after 4 days of aerobic exposure, the 0, 5%, 10% and 20% treatments exhibited a rapid change of pH, but for the 15% treatment the pH did not change much. In conclusion, the recommended mixing ratio for incorporation of rice straw into mixed alfalfa-wheat bran silage, is not more than 5% rice straw.

Key words: mixed silage, rice straw, fermentation quality, nutritional quality, aerobic stability

罗颖洁, 陈桂华, 穆麟, 胡龙兴, 张志飞, 高帅, 魏仲珊. 不同稻秸添加比例对紫花苜蓿和麦麸混合青贮的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 178-184.

LUO Ying-jie, CHEN Gui-hua, MU Lin, HU Long-xing, ZHANG Zhi-fei, GAO Shuai, WEI Zhong-shan. Effects on silage quality of mixing different ratios of rice straw with alfalfa and wheat bran[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(5): 178-184.

参考文献

[1] Quan L F, Li B, Liu X, et al. The effect of adding pineapple peel on quality of rice straw silage. Feed Research, 2014, (13): 85-88.
全林发, 李勃, 刘学, 等. 菠萝皮添加对稻草青贮品质的影响. 饲料研究, 2014, (13): 85-88.
[2] Jiang H, Zhang L, Ma J P, et al. The effect of withered Alhagi sparsifolia and rice straw mix-ensiling on silage quality. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(2): 109-116.
蒋慧, 张玲, 马金萍, 等. 枯黄期骆驼刺与稻草混贮对青贮饲料品质的影响. 草业学报, 2011, 20(2): 109-116.
[3] Li J L, Zhang X Q, Yu Z, et al. A study on quality of Italian ryegrass and rice straw mixed silage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(4): 915-918.
李君临, 张新全, 玉柱, 等. 多花黑麦草与水稻秸秆混合青贮品质的研究. 草地学报, 2014, 22(4): 915-918.
[4] Liu B Y, Ding C L, Xu N X, et al. Effect of different levels of rice straw addition on pH, microorganism of ryegrass and rice straw mixed silage and stability after aerobic exposure. Jiangsu Agricultural Journal, 2018, 34(1): 99-105.
刘蓓一, 丁成龙, 许能祥, 等. 不同比例稻草和多花黑麦草混合青贮对饲料pH、微生物数量及有氧稳定性的影响. 江苏农业学报, 2018, 34(1): 99-105.
[5] Wang J, Chen L, Yuan X J, et al. Effects of molasses on the fermentation characteristics of mixed silage prepared with rice straw, local vegetable by-products and alfalfa in southeast China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2017, 16(3): 664-670.
[6] Zhang Z F, Mu L,Wen Z Z, et al. Effects of different additives on quality and bacterial community composition of alfalfa wrap ped silage. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2017, 39(4): 54-59.
张志飞, 穆麟, 文昭竹, 等. 不同添加剂对紫花苜蓿裹包青贮品质及菌群构成的影响. 中国草地学报, 2017, 39(4): 54-59.
[7] Chen H.The study on the nutrient composition and rumen degradation characteristics of different source of energy feeds. Ya’an: Sichuan Agriculture University, 2013.
陈慧. 不同能量饲料的组成差异及瘤胃降解特性的比较研究. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2013.
[8] Zhang Z Y.Chinese feed science. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
张子仪. 中国饲料学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[9] Broderick G A, Kang J H.Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and amino acids in ruminal fluids and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1): 64-75.
[10] Zhang L Y.Feed analysis and quality test technology. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2007.
张丽英. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2007.
[11] Chen J X, Wang X F.Phytophysiology experiment. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology Press, 2015.
陈建勋, 王晓峰. 植物生理学试验. 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2015.
[12] Dong D K.Relative feed value of forage. China Dairy Cattle, 1994, (4): 28-29.
董德宽. 饲草的相对饲料值. 中国奶牛, 1990, (4): 28-29.
[13] The Evaluation Council of Self-feed Quality. The evaluation manual of crude feed. Tokyo: The Association of Grassland and Livestock Products in Japan, 2001: 82-87.
自给饲料品质评价研究会. 粗饲料品质评价手册. 东京: 日本草地畜产种子协会, 2001: 82-87.
[14] Li C X.The effects of lactic acid bacteria on the quality and microbial fermentation of whole corn silage. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, 2009.
李翠霞. 青贮发酵菌对全株玉米青贮品质与微生物消长的影响. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2009.
[15] Xu Q F, Han J G, Yu Z.Advances in the research of silage effluent. Pratacultural Science, 2005, 22(11): 94-99.
许庆方, 韩建国, 玉柱. 青贮渗出液的研究进展. 草业科学, 2005, 22(11): 94-99.
[16] China Animal Agriculture Association. Silage and haylage alfalfa, T/CAAA 003-2018. Beijing: China Standards Press, 2018.
中国畜牧业协会. 青贮和半干青贮饲料紫花苜蓿, T/CAAA 003-2018. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2018.
[17] Wilkinson J M, Davies D R.The aerobic stability of silage: Key findings and recent development. Grass and Forage Science, 2012, 68: 1-19.
[18] Li J F, Sun X H, Yuan X J, et al. Effect of adding acetic acid on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of mixed oat and alfalfa silage in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(5): 271-278.
李君风, 孙肖慧, 原现军, 等. 添加乙酸对西藏燕麦和紫花苜蓿混合青贮发酵品质和有氧稳定性的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(5): 271-278.
[19] Qiu X Y, Yuan X J, Guo G, et al. Effects of molasses and acetic acid on fermentation and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(6): 111-118.
邱小燕, 原现军, 郭刚, 等. 添加糖蜜和乙酸对西藏发酵全混合日粮青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 111-118.
[20] Huang Q L, Huang X S, Huang S Z, et al. Effects of feeding hybrid Pennisetum silage on commercial hog production. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(5): 134-140.
黄勤楼, 黄秀声, 黄水珍, 等. 杂交狼尾草青贮饲喂肉猪效果研究. 草业学报, 2015, 24(5): 134-140.
[21] Huang W, Yang L, Wang G Y, et al. Studies of the growth performance and muscle mineral contents in Yunnan Guishan goats by feeding the Eichhornia crassipes residuals ensilage mixing with bran meal. Feed Industry, 2013, 34(17): 52-56.
黄伟, 杨琏, 王桂瑛, 等. 水葫芦渣与麦麸混合青贮料对山羊生长性能及肌肉矿物质含量的影响. 饲料工业, 2013, 34(17): 52-56.

不同稻秸添加比例对紫花苜蓿和麦麸混合青贮的影响

Effects on silage quality of mixing different ratios of rice straw with alfalfa and wheat bran

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	董文成, 林语梵, 朱鸿福, 张欢, 张桂杰. 不同品种葡萄渣对苜蓿青贮品质和有氧稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 129-137.
[2]	游永亮, 李源, 赵海明, 武瑞鑫, 刘贵波. 海河平原区施氮磷肥对饲用小黑麦生产性能及营养品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 137-146.
[3]	李艳芬, 程金花, 田川尧, 田雨佳, 卢冬亚, 张建斌. 双乙酸钠对苜蓿青贮品质、营养成分及蛋白分子结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 163-171.
[4]	毛翠, 刘方圆, 宋恩亮, 王亚芳, 王永军, 战翔, 李原, 成海建, 姜富贵. 不同乳酸菌添加量和发酵时间对全株玉米青贮营养价值及发酵品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(10): 172-181.
[5]	苗晓茸, 孙艳梅, 于磊, 马春晖, 张前兵. 氮磷互作对不同茬次滴灌苜蓿生产性能及营养品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 55-66.
[6]	琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 贾志峰, 梁国玲. 不同燕麦品种在甘肃中部的营养价值及青贮发酵品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 77-86.
[7]	林语梵, 朱鸿福, 王丽慧, 张桂杰. 宁夏黄灌区专用青贮玉米品种生产性能和营养价值研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(8): 40-48.
[8]	李小铃, 关皓, 帅杨, 李小梅, 彭安琪, 李昌华, 蒲棋, 闫艳红, 张新全. 单一和复合乳酸菌添加剂对扁穗牛鞭草青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 119-127.
[9]	李菲菲, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 苗芳, 马春晖. 同/异型发酵乳酸菌对全株玉米青贮营养成分和瘤胃降解特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 128-136.
[10]	刘月, 王国艮, 吴浩, 孟庆翔, 宋恩亮, 成海建, 周振明. 全株青贮玉米品种对其发酵品质及营养价值的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(6): 148-156.
[11]	张光雨, 马和平, 邵小明, 王江伟, 沈振西, 付刚. 西藏河谷区9个引进燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质比较研究[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 121-131.
[12]	商振达, 谭占坤, 李家奎, 卓嘎, 王宏辉, 巴桑, 谢国平, 刘锁珠. 西藏地区荞麦与玉米混合青贮对发酵品质和微生物多样性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(4): 95-105.
[13]	李菲菲, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 唐开婷, 马春晖. 刈割茬次和生育期对苜蓿青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 137-148.
[14]	李顺, 穆麟, 曾宁波, 陈东, 张志飞, 叶志刚. 添加剂对籽粒苋与豆粕混合青贮品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 205-210.
[15]	成启明, 格根图, 撒多文, 王志军, 范文强, 卜振鲲, 司强, 李俊峰, 卢娟, 贾玉山. 不同品种紫花苜蓿转录组分析及营养品质差异的探讨[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(10): 199-208.